Ray Kurzweil (the “Singularity” guy) joins Google

Ray Kurzweil, a well-known entrepreneur and futurist, probably best known for propagating the idea of a “technology singularity” (a topic covered in a previous Ars Technicast), has just been hired at Google. The singularity suggests that human history will eventually reach a culmination of biological and technological achievement through genetics, nanotech, robotics, and artificial intelligence.

Starting next week, he will join the company as “Director of Engineering,” and will be working on machine learning and language processing.

“I’ve been interested in technology, and machine learning in particular, for a long time,” he wrote on his website on Friday. “When I was 14, I designed software that wrote original music, and later went on to invent the first print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, among other inventions. I’ve always worked to create practical systems that will make a difference in people’s lives, which is what excites me as an inventor.”

“On close examination, his clearest and most successful predictions often lack originality or profundity,” wrote John Rennie in IEEE Spectrum in 2010. “And most of his predictions come with so many loopholes that they border on the unfalsifiable.”

Like him or hate him, Kurzweil is definitely thought-provoking, and will be a force at Google in some respect in the future.

Promoted Comments

Hmm. Clearly he's a smart guy who's done some amazing things, but his association with the ridiculous "Singularity" stuff (and the totally over-the-top pill popping- 250+ vitamins etc a day!) isn't something that reflects well on his judgement, or Google's in hiring him.

I was a fan of the original Singularity stuff in Vinge's *scifi* books, but I look askance at anyone who takes that seriously as a prediction when the idea can be blown to bits in a few seconds of rigorous thought. Sure, I agree that there is a technological "takeoff" going on, but it ain't going to look like a "Singularity". As any physicist knows, pretty much any exponential etc. function eventually runs into a domain where new rules take over, and that's why no one feels comfortable for example confidently extrapolating physics to unencountered ultra-high-energy domains like sub-Planck-length physics etc. Same for techno change and things like Moore's law. Eventually, other considerations will dominate, so it's foolish to extrapolate pretty much anything beyond a certain point.

most of kurzweil's truly cool work was done decades ago. since then, he's lived it up granting "vision" to the boards of various start-ups in exchange for stock options, whilst cannily manipulating the media into thinking he's still relevant.

^^^ did you *have* to make that joke with an obnoxious, oversized animated gif?

Well, at the very worst he'll make for some good PR. If he got a cute/joke title, I might be inclined to think that's all he'll be doing. But "Director of Engineering" is serious, and I doubt Google is handing that out to him as an honorific. That don't really NEED him, after all. Which makes me think he actively made a case for being hired.

My not-very-futuristic prediction is that we'll be seeing a Google gimmick with his name attached to it show up early in the upcoming year. I don't expect it to live up to whatever hype they give it, and I doubt it'll be successful, but it'll happen.

Hmm. Clearly he's a smart guy who's done some amazing things, but his association with the ridiculous "Singularity" stuff (and the totally over-the-top pill popping- 250+ vitamins etc a day!) isn't something that reflects well on his judgement, or Google's in hiring him.

I was a fan of the original Singularity stuff in Vinge's *scifi* books, but I look askance at anyone who takes that seriously as a prediction when the idea can be blown to bits in a few seconds of rigorous thought. Sure, I agree that there is a technological "takeoff" going on, but it ain't going to look like a "Singularity". As any physicist knows, pretty much any exponential etc. function eventually runs into a domain where new rules take over, and that's why no one feels comfortable for example confidently extrapolating physics to unencountered ultra-high-energy domains like sub-Planck-length physics etc. Same for techno change and things like Moore's law. Eventually, other considerations will dominate, so it's foolish to extrapolate pretty much anything beyond a certain point.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic, but his argument is still flawed and its formulation just shows how much he falsely simplifies things to make his predictions seem plausible. He's not an idiot but his predictions are based on wishful thinking, not knowledge.

As for participating on kurzweilia.net, I can't imagine a bigger waste of time (well, I could, but...). Arguing with true-believers and apologists about statements that sound plausible but are logically flawed whose main effect is emotional? No thanks.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic, but his argument is still flawed and its formulation just shows how much he falsely simplifies things to make his predictions seem plausible. He's not an idiot but his predictions are based on wishful thinking, not knowledge.

As for participating on kurzweilia.net, I can't imagine a bigger waste of time (well, I could, but...). Arguing with true-believers and apologists about statements that sound plausible but are logically flawed whose main effect is emotional? No thanks.

You can have that opinion, but it is not demonstrated. As far as not participating on kurzweilai.net, well, I was just sitting here thinking on my way to check for replies, that you would try to find an excuse to bow out, but hey if you're going to chicken out you can always just blame the opposition for being too oppositiony I guess. As it is, there are quite a few contrarians on that site. Just seems cheap to make faux definitive one line rebuttals of a man that has written thousands of pages on this subject, in a place where nobody really understands how involved this topic is. I want to imagine Ars has a higher caliber of poster, but alas I suppose not.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic, but his argument is still flawed and its formulation just shows how much he falsely simplifies things to make his predictions seem plausible. He's not an idiot but his predictions are based on wishful thinking, not knowledge.

As for participating on kurzweilia.net, I can't imagine a bigger waste of time (well, I could, but...). Arguing with true-believers and apologists about statements that sound plausible but are logically flawed whose main effect is emotional? No thanks.

You can have that opinion, but it is not demonstrated. As far as not participating on kurzweilai.net, well, I was just sitting here thinking on my way to check for replies, that you would try to find an excuse to bow out, but hey if you're going to chicken out you can always just blame the opposition for being too oppositiony I guess. As it is, there are quite a few contrarians on that site. Just seems cheap to make faux definitive one line rebuttals of a man that has written thousands of pages on this subject, in a place where nobody really understands how involved this topic is. I want to imagine Ars has a higher caliber of poster, but alas I suppose not.

Sorry. Baiting me by insulting me isn't going to work. Nice try though. I own his books and I've read them. I don't need to "demonstrate" that I understand them to anyone. As far as one line dismissals, well, that's all the effort it's really worth. You're welcome to your opinion that it's worth more but I don't share it.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic, but his argument is still flawed and its formulation just shows how much he falsely simplifies things to make his predictions seem plausible. He's not an idiot but his predictions are based on wishful thinking, not knowledge.

As for participating on kurzweilia.net, I can't imagine a bigger waste of time (well, I could, but...). Arguing with true-believers and apologists about statements that sound plausible but are logically flawed whose main effect is emotional? No thanks.

You can have that opinion, but it is not demonstrated. As far as not participating on kurzweilai.net, well, I was just sitting here thinking on my way to check for replies, that you would try to find an excuse to bow out, but hey if you're going to chicken out you can always just blame the opposition for being too oppositiony I guess. As it is, there are quite a few contrarians on that site. Just seems cheap to make faux definitive one line rebuttals of a man that has written thousands of pages on this subject, in a place where nobody really understands how involved this topic is. I want to imagine Ars has a higher caliber of poster, but alas I suppose not.

Sorry. Baiting me by insulting me isn't going to work. Nice try though. I own his books and I've read them. I don't need to "demonstrate" that I understand them to anyone. As far as one line dismissals, well, that's all the effort it's really worth. You're welcome to your opinion that it's worth more but I don't share it.

Is it an insult if it's true? Deep thought time. I was just trying to give you a chance to make a real case for your opinions. I don't believe you understand a word of this subject, you mischaracterized his concepts on the implications of the amount of data for the brain stored in DNA, which is the only thing you've been specific about. Other than that, it's the dime a dozen "it's all wrong, trust me" nonsense.

Ah, Kurzweil. He lost all credibility with me when he claimed that we'd be able to do brain uploading in the near future because we can already store all the information in human DNA in a few hundred MB. Thus proving beyond reasonable doubt he has no idea what he's talking about.

Like most of the criticisms here, Kurzweil didn't say that. What he said, is that the brain is understandable if for no other reason than it comes from a few hundred MBs of DNA, and that brain uploading will be possible because of other advances that have nothing to do with this. He's not saying any possible configuration of hundreds of MBs of data is a cinch, but you have to understand he argues against people who insinuate he is a quack because the brain is magical mystery stuff or whatever. If you guys are going to totally destroy a widely respected tech figure, at least be technically accurate, or is that asking too much? Also there are places for this kind of discussion, (Kurzweilai.net forums for instance), It just seems really odd to write pages and pages of arguments for these silly criticisms in this particular thread..kind of what you were going for I suppose, so you could feel smart and uncontested, post these profound thought provoking criticisms at kurzweilai.net if you're feeling brave.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic, but his argument is still flawed and its formulation just shows how much he falsely simplifies things to make his predictions seem plausible. He's not an idiot but his predictions are based on wishful thinking, not knowledge.

As for participating on kurzweilia.net, I can't imagine a bigger waste of time (well, I could, but...). Arguing with true-believers and apologists about statements that sound plausible but are logically flawed whose main effect is emotional? No thanks.

You can have that opinion, but it is not demonstrated. As far as not participating on kurzweilai.net, well, I was just sitting here thinking on my way to check for replies, that you would try to find an excuse to bow out, but hey if you're going to chicken out you can always just blame the opposition for being too oppositiony I guess. As it is, there are quite a few contrarians on that site. Just seems cheap to make faux definitive one line rebuttals of a man that has written thousands of pages on this subject, in a place where nobody really understands how involved this topic is. I want to imagine Ars has a higher caliber of poster, but alas I suppose not.

Sorry. Baiting me by insulting me isn't going to work. Nice try though. I own his books and I've read them. I don't need to "demonstrate" that I understand them to anyone. As far as one line dismissals, well, that's all the effort it's really worth. You're welcome to your opinion that it's worth more but I don't share it.

Is it an insult if it's true? Deep thought time. I was just trying to give you a chance to make a real case for your opinions. I don't believe you understand a word of this subject, you mischaracterized his concepts on the implications of the amount of data for the brain stored in DNA, which is the only thing you've been specific about. Other than that, it's the dime a dozen "it's all wrong, trust me" nonsense.

You really are good at baiting. I hope you at least get to use it as a part of your career. I am still not going to bite though. Believe what you like about my understanding of the subject. It matters little to me. I didn't "characterize" his concepts at all. I made an accurate assessment of them. I guess I'll just have to bear the weight of your inconsequential judgment and leave you to continue to imbibe the snake oil (or is it drink the kool aid?).

He is a smart guy with many really good points, but his conclusions are so off base. A lot of innovation happens in spurts and leaps not in a steady stream of innovation that he likes to try to present. The world and innovation is much more chaotic than he makes it out to be.

But I do agree with him that there really is a good chance that we will be able to simulate the human mind in a computer. At which point AI could really take off and may, at least in theory, advance at an amazing rate.

Hmmm. Lots of closed minds on here. Pity their mouths aren't the same.

The singularity is just an event horizon that we cant see past, that is all.

For technology people to be so blind to the excellerating pace of development is really quite disappointing. You might find that 'ol Ray's graphs are really quite good, if you guys had bothered to look.

Cudos to Google for getting him involved... AGI, however, is a delicate matter. I'm not so sure that inside a corporate is the right place for it to happen. Well, I suppose it's better than inside a government institution.

Hmmm. Lots of closed minds on here. Pity their mouths aren't the same.

The singularity is just an event horizon that we cant see past, that is all.

For technology people to be so blind to the excellerating pace of development is really quite disappointing. You might find that 'ol Ray's graphs are really quite good, if you guys had bothered to look.

Why do you think we are closed-minded or haven't looked at "'ol Ray's graphs"? Because we disagree with you? We must be irrational or ignorant, right? If the only things Kurzweil were saying is that there is an event horizon we can't see beyond and technology is accelerating, it'd be trivial and utterly uninteresting. No, the problem is with the ideas themselves not us "unbelievers".

Hmmm. Lots of closed minds on here. Pity their mouths aren't the same.

The singularity is just an event horizon that we cant see past, that is all.

For technology people to be so blind to the excellerating pace of development is really quite disappointing. You might find that 'ol Ray's graphs are really quite good, if you guys had bothered to look.

Why do you think we are closed-minded or haven't looked at "'ol Ray's graphs"? Because we disagree with you? We must be irrational or ignorant, right? If the only things Kurzweil were saying is that there is an event horizon we can't see beyond and technology is accelerating, it'd be trivial and utterly uninteresting. No, the problem is with the ideas themselves not us "unbelievers".

So ALL his ideas are ridiculous? Make a prediction if you know the future. You don't disagree with me, I disagree with you.

Open your mind and imagine the possibilities that abound when the computer in your pocket is 1000x as powerful as it is now, with 1000x the bandwidth linking it to all the other devices on the planet. And the fact that development of most technologies is linked to the power of computers? What ideas can POSSIBLY be off the table?

If Kurzweil is a quack, as so many here seem to think, then why did Google hire him?

Either Kurzweil is legit or the people at Google are idiots. You can't have it both ways.

If the people running Google are idiots, why is Google one of the most successful and innovative companies on Earth?

Perhaps this is an example of why Google is such an amazing company, perhaps it is proof that intelligent people are taking Kurzweil very seriously. But if that is true, what does it say about the "naysayers" posting here?

Many years ago, Ray Kurzweil started a company that made musical instruments. I still love my Kurzweil piano -- it sounds like a real grand piano despite being nothing but electronic circuits. He truly was a pioneer and major innovator in that field.

As a "futurist" however, he is a fraud and a failure. Which is very sad. He should have stuck to what he does best.

Hmm. Clearly he's a smart guy who's done some amazing things, but his association with the ridiculous "Singularity" stuff (and the totally over-the-top pill popping- 250+ vitamins etc a day!) isn't something that reflects well on his judgement, or Google's in hiring him.

I was a fan of the original Singularity stuff in Vinge's *scifi* books, but I look askance at anyone who takes that seriously as a prediction when the idea can be blown to bits in a few seconds of rigorous thought. Sure, I agree that there is a technological "takeoff" going on, but it ain't going to look like a "Singularity". As any physicist knows, pretty much any exponential etc. function eventually runs into a domain where new rules take over, and that's why no one feels comfortable for example confidently extrapolating physics to unencountered ultra-high-energy domains like sub-Planck-length physics etc. Same for techno change and things like Moore's law. Eventually, other considerations will dominate, so it's foolish to extrapolate pretty much anything beyond a certain point.

That's exactly what singularity theory says; that we won't be able to forecast future developments beyond a certain event horizon.

That's exactly what singularity theory says; that we won't be able to forecast future developments beyond a certain event horizon.

Uh, if that's what singularity theory says, then it is trivial. We already have a "theory" for that, boring old chaos theory. We don't need a theory or a "Singularity University" to tell us that we can't predict the future. When something is unknowable, the wise man restricts himself to saying "I don't know". When you start filling in unknowable blanks with what "might" be there, or what you "want" to be there... well, we already have that.

If Kurzweil is a quack, as so many here seem to think, then why did Google hire him?

Either Kurzweil is legit or the people at Google are idiots. You can't have it both ways.

If the people running Google are idiots, why is Google one of the most successful and innovative companies on Earth?

Perhaps this is an example of why Google is such an amazing company, perhaps it is proof that intelligent people are taking Kurzweil very seriously. But if that is true, what does it say about the "naysayers" posting here?

You registered today just to say that? Even if your point wasn't an argument from authority and a false dichotomy (ie. fallacious) it'd still be wrong. Kurzweil is a good engineering manager. He has several very successful products to his name (literally). Google would be justified hiring him for that reason alone. It doesn't mean Google hired him for his futurist "talents". In fact I'd say they didn't because his title is Director of Engineering. So, Google hiring him says absolutely nothing about the "naysayers" despite your fervent desire for it to say it means we are the idiots. With such coarse and specious reasoning on display from believers I think I'll trust my own judgment.